« Interesting Choice | Main | Comment Policy of this Blog »


Since Michael Moore I don't really care about such singled-out opinions any more. Moore uses them to make his point, his opponents use them to support their point. I've refrained from believing such statements, esp. when they seem designed to put one of the two sides down in a rather biased way. Hence, they can be used to prove or disprove anything.

Anyways - why isn't Ukraine and Putin's behaviour a topic here?
Even Colin Powell gave a very clear statement on that one.

Also, the whole debacle sheds some very interesting light on Vladimir Putin, whom Schröder still likes to portray - wrongly IMHO - as a flawless democrat.

This (Schröder's problematic attitude towards Putin), quite interestingly, is also pointed out here of all places. Haven't seen such criticism elsewhere although I'd quite like to. Actually, that's wrong - ARD's Beckmann asked Schröder about the same topic on Monday. But he wasnt really investigative about it and let go off Schröder a little to easily.

By the way, who is saying that there is no german commitment for Afghanistan?

If the chaldean Archbishop is correctly quoted, where is the bias? Or is it just bias to quote anyone at all who holds views like these?

Europeans may save a few lives by not sending soldiers but they will lose (more of) their souls by not aiding a people in need. Sweden and Switzerland are the smug, self-absorbed models of Europe. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Don't ask for my help, though. Ask yourself how many Western European soldiers have died freeing non-Europeans. Selfishness, thy name is Europe.

No these guys that want to put this election off home are not for demoracy in Iraq ever. Take a look at who they are.

@ Michael Moore
Thanks for bringing a pretty balanced view into this...

I can always count on the most stupid of posts from afromme. Its hard to believe you can breathe without thinking about it. Or is it that you are ideologically threatened by this website? I think you spend more time on this website than David does.

The whole point to this website is to assert the news that is filtered out of, ignored by, or censored from the normal media sources. David assumes that you have already heard the endless stories of violence and pessimism, so he attempts to EMPHASIZE portions of the news or issues which are important to understanding the larger picture of what is at stake. Most detractors argue more about the concept of this website rather than the actual issues presented.

"afromme" usually takes an outlandish position, is confronted, then backs away from the initial position. Some counterpoints to non-sense:
a) Yes, yes, violence is a problem in Iraq. Everyone knows that. The bias comes in only reporting or emphasizing the violence to the exclusion of all other facts. The media wants Iraq to fail because they hate their own societies, and a failure in Iraq will serve the means to denigrating and demoralizing the West.
b)You ARE saying that elections should be put off because in your heart of hearts you want it all to fail so that you can have even more to shit on later in order to fuel your cynical and nihilistic world view.
c)Yes, the point is to postpone the elections indefinitely. Have you not even watched the regular media reports from spring to the present? Six months, another six months, another six months................
d)Even if they are not out right against Democracy, this is about power and positioning to get it.
e)Iraq has more troubles than violence, many western Democracy's like France and Germany want the infant Iraqi Democracy to fail not because the war is immoral and its US sponsor is a hostile, corrupt world power, but because they want POWER and a means to getting their 19th century empires back in the 21st century is to oppose the US. Not to mention the fact that they are still infected with the religious disease of marxism which is the driving force behind self-loathing in Western societies.
f)Simple power struggle, not uncommon in arab culture.
g)The shiites do have an agenda as all the others do, hence the call for a six month delay.

The solution is to do what the enemies of democracy and the power hungry do not want you to do in Iraq, hold elections in January right on schedule despite everything. Yes, violence will mount the closer the election draws near, and that should not come as a surprise to anyone. If you waited six months, you would give them even more time to escalate things. Also expect them to do the most unspeakable acts of violence. It is a sign that we are winning, and that they are becoming desparate. They are relying on western leftist cowardness and weakness to win the day. Why this should come as a surprise to anyone only serves to demonstrate how low certain segments of Western culture have fallen since the father of Western decadence, Marx. Really, they aren't even "cultured" anymore, merely spoiled, childlike savages living on the largess of adult accomplishments.

You want an exit strategy from Iraq, its called "WIN." We are at war with islam because islam is at war with us. That is the unspeakable truth no one wants to admit. This is a genocidal world war. Muslims want to kill and destroy everything not muslim. The current war in Iraq is an age old ritual of civilizing the savages, and it follows three constants: conquer, colonize, civilize. WMD's were not the only reason, but it seems every muslim society wants them.

The war in Iraq is a humanitarian enterprise to avoid escalating the genocidal war muslims have launched against the world. Where ever islam lands, murder and hate quickly follow.

If islamic societies can be transformed into modern democracies, or the closest thing to it, which are prosperous and hopeful, then those muslims living in Germany, France, Belgium, etc. would be deprived of cultural support for killing Europeans at home. And they do mean you harm. If Europe's muslims could kill, enslave, rape, and burn Europeans and their cultural traditions, they would do it in a minute. You people better wake up.

Maybe I am too harsh on afromme, and I should have erased the initial put-down, but it is my gut reaction to all those who are more concerned about arguing with and against their own cultural traditions and their noble undertakings than with their enemies. Nuking muslims is a lot easier and more satisfying then trying to help them achieve a better tomorrow. The same tomorrow we want for ourselves. I think that is as close to moral as you will get in this world.

I don't mean to stifle descent or the interplay of trying to hash out the best outcome for the future. Dialogue is essential to free societies which is the point to this website. For too long there has not been a dialogue, just blind onesided rants masquerading as objective media.

To "Michael Moore":

Normal life does occur around the globe no matter what type of government a particular people live under. People get married, work a job (maybe), have children, eat (maybe), etc. There is nothing exceptional to "normal life", but there IS something exceptional about living in a modern western democracy where one has the most opportunities, possibilities, and material and cultural benefits ever created by mankind. We live like the gods in ancient myths and legends. Democracy's share normal life with every society on Earth, but we have what they only dream about, exceptional lives. And I think David does understand the difference.

Never preach to an American about the rule of law. We are the culmination of the western (meaning European) struggle for the rule of law. With the exception of our fore fathers Great Britian, we did everything Europeans struggled to do culturally but could not accomplish prior to the 20th century on continental Europe, which is create a Moral Democracy. The idea was then exported back to Europe after WWII. Attempts were made in Europe, but Marxism or Nazism exterminated those attempts.

We ARE you fundementally, but sometimes I don't think continental Europe has yet to be properly civilized, or rather to understand its own struggles, yearnings, and achievements.

Americans do understand that even shameful regimes provide "order" for a society, and breaking that order creates temporary chaos. That is why we don't normally go around toppling dictorial regimes on a whim, but rather try to change them over time peacefully, China is an example of rotting a dictatorship from the inside out. Plus, Americans aren't traditionally an aggressive society. We much prefer to be left alone and have peaceful relationships with the world. If we were aggressive like most world powers in history, we would have conquered the world through true military intervention and occupation much like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Pay for oil? Please.......

Yes time will tell in Iraq, but I would much rather attempt to create a better future for Iraqis than to stand idle and cynical on the sidelines as the savages scale the walls to slit your throat.

True red state Americans understand human nature better than most people because they are students of their own government and cultural traditions which are, surprise, pessimistic about human nature. The most seductive aspect of democracy is that everyone sees they have something at stake, but these concerns are tempored by someone else's concerns. Everyone's worst instincts work against everyone else's worst instincts in a system of mutual benefit. The problem with this concept of democracy is that its guiding bedrock is the moral vision of Christianity with its concern for the individual and emphasis on individual accountability. Take Christianity out of the mix and I am not sure it will work for long. Time will tell, but Japan has succeeded so far.

Though I'm not one of the numerous Europeans who stubbornly deny that Islam itself could possibly have anything to do with the violence we see throughout the world perpetrated in the name of Islam, I think we should absolutely avoid talking about the GWOT as a war against Islam, for this is exactly how some people try to discredit it, and to mobilize muslims against it.
Sweeping generalizations about muslims are counterproductive, dangerous and needlessly offending moderate and peaceful muslims, who could and should be our allies.

Berichterstattung in der FAZ über Barguti: Viele positive Worte und Beschreibungen, Terror wird allenfalls im Nebensatz erwähnt und als Reaktion auf irgendwelche israelischen Aktionen dargestellt. Entspricht das denn der Wirklichkeit? Wird Barguti bewußt oder unbewußt verharmlost? Wenn ja, was ich meine, warum? Unterstützen die Medien nicht dadurch die Terrorstruktur in den palästinensichen Gebieten? Wird dadurch nicht Scharon, der den Terror bekämpft, dämonisiert, während man die Terroristen, die den Terror benutzen und begonnen haben und fortsetzen, verharmlost und ihnen politische Ziele zuschreibt. Wollen wir tatsächlich solche Menschen in der Politik, im Nahen Osten an der Regierung? Politiker, die sich mit vermummten Kämpfern umgeben? Wollen wir Politiker, die Kinder und Jugendliche mit Haß erziehen, so daß diese später gar nicht mehr zu einem Miteinander mit Israel fähig sind? Warum überhaupt Scharon dämonisieren und Barguti positiv darstellen??? Alles Negative über Baguti stellt er dar, indem er sagt, das sage Israel über ihn. Nur Israel? Klingt immer so, als wäre es deshalb falsch und einseitig. Bloße israelische Polemik. Schwer zu glauben, daß Menschen wie Barguti tatsächlich Terror benutzen. Das können manche deutsche Gehirne wie das des Herrn Bremer nicht fassen, also kann es nicht wahr sein und man phantasiert es als israelisches Hirngespinst oder irgnoriert es. Barguti wäre erst dadurch zum Terroisten geworden, weil der Siedlungsbau weitergegangen sei. Ist das tatsächlich eine akzeptable Erklärung für Terror?! Man ist an diesen Schwachsinn, den Terror zu verharmlosen, schon so gewöhnt, daß es einen nicht aufschreckt zu lesen, daß Menschen zu Gewalt greifen. Keiner fragt: War es denn das letzte Mittel? Gibt es denn keinen anderen Weg? So wie man es Bush entgegengeschleudert hat. Beim palästinensischen Terror wird diese Frage ausgeklammert. Es wird hingenommen und sogar akzeptiert als unausweichlich. Terror ist aber nicht unausweichlich. Wir akzeptieren ihn allerdings, wenn wir ihn nicht anklagen, verdammen.

Für mich ist das psychische Terrorunterstützung in der FAZ durch Jörg Bremer.

Warum empfindet Bremer kein Grauen angesichts Arafat und Barguti. Sie benutzen Terror als politische Waffe, und keiner klagt sie dafür an. Nur eine Reaktion auf .... was auch immer. Dadurch redet man Terror klein und verkennt die wahre Natur.

I agree! Bin Ladin is a muslim, so he pretends to act in the name of Allah. He is a mass murderer and a muslim mass murderer but the Islam is not the reason. The islam is part of his live but not the reason for using terror. Bin Laden would be a Christian terrorist if he would be born in Berlin.

So I think mass murderer and to use terror as a method has not its reason in religion or politics. The reason is the criminal character of Bin Laden.

If Bin Laden would choose another ideology and would use terror to spread this idea, we could not blame this ideology for his decision to use terror.

But Bin Laden is manipulating others to get support by misinterpreting islam. There is the connection to Islam.

The Palestinian terror is a great example for prooving that terror is a choice by criminal people. To kill Israeli people has nothing to do with politics or religion, it has to do with hatred and the decision to use terror as a method to kill Israeli people as much as possible.

We can isolate the problem "terror" as mass murdering and fight it by military actions when necessary. And there are many other methods to stop terrorists: working together with other countries to stop the financing of terrorists. Let them be isolated without money in their romantic caves.

... and the first step is: to call terror terror in the media and to condemn it like we condemn mass murdering and genocide. There is never a reason for terror. There are only terrorists who take any reason for their killing.

I don't want to co-blog here, but why exactly was my comment deleted? I mean we all know that I do not agree with the general direction of this blog (my screen name screams this out, maybe I am a little too drastic here, I saw the movie and watching it I already called bs on many things), but in the entry You deleted I was supporting Your point, David.

I was simply saying the media (all media, maybe I was hinting that not only the German media, but all media does this and was taking it in the wrong direction) likes to focus on stuff to report about. A bombing is much more news worthy than normal live.

Chaos would be when the "rule of law" gets disbanded.

Many people here talk about everything but the actual blog entry. Since I still can read their comments I don't see the problem. And I was focusing on the blog entry.

Maybe You deleted my post because You disagreed with me. That would be perfectly fine, because it is Your blog. But please don't try and beat around the bush saying stuff like "someone starts using our comment sections for co-blogging", since I didn't do anything that any other of Your commentators would have done, I only stated a different opinion.

Zum Irak noch zwei überaus lesenswerte Kolumnen:

Saving the Iraqi Children

The biggest risk to Iraq's innocents may come from those on the left who want to bring our troops home now.


A Fight for Shiites

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 26, 2004; Page A39



Du hast vollkommen Recht. Zunächst erst einmal muss das Bewusstsein dafür vorhanden sein, dass Terroristen Terroristen sind - und keinesfalls etwas Anderes, wie es vor allem deutsche Intellektuelle alá Peter Scholl-Latour, Günther Grass, Walter Jens oder Udo Steinbach uns immer wieder glaubhaft machen wollen, wenn sie an die Öffentlichkeit appellieren, man müsse die "wahren Ursachen" hinter dem Terror erforschen, will man der Lage Herr werden. Der Kampf gegen die Zerschlagung von Mythen dauert nach wie vor an.

Der an der Berliner Humboldt-Uni lehrende Professor für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Volker Gerhardt schreibt beispielsweise im aktuellen Merkur:

"Aber es gab und gibt noch einige mehr, die für den Terror Verständnis zu zeigen, obgleich sie ihn, weiß Gott, nicht wünschen. Nicht erst die Wissenschaft bringt es mit sich, dass man aus Geschichte und alltägliche Psychologie Argumente für die Unausweichlichkeit gewaltsamer Aktionen zu entnehmen weiß. Man glaubt auch schon aus reinem Mitgefühl die Ursachen des gewaltsamen Kampfes zu kennen, meint die Motive zu verstehen und kann folglich der praktizierten Grausamkeit eine gewisse Berechtigung nicht absprechen. Unterstellt man den Tätern den legitimen Impuls zur eigene Lebensführung, hat man sich nur noch die Widerstände zu vergegenwärtigen, denen die Menschen in den Krisenregionen der Erde ausgesetzt sind, um den Ausbruch des Terrors für eine unumgängliche Reaktion zu halten. Damit werden aus Tätern Opfer und aus Opfern Täter: Wenn die Gegenseite die Ursache für die Erhebung der Ohnmächtigen schafft, muss sie sich zumindest eine Mitschuld am Ausbruch der Gewalt vorwerfen lassen. Das ist die Logik hinter allem Verstehen. Es hebt die einseitigen Ansichten auf und beurteilt alles niemals bloß aus einer Position. Im Verstehen rückt auch das Fremde in den eigenen Horizont, und es kann sogar den Feind zu einem vertrauten Gegenüber machen. Daran liegt die Stärke des Verstehens, und es ist ein Missverständnis des 19. Jahrhunderts, es notwendig mit einer Schwäche in Urteil und Handlung zu verbinden. Die Öffentlichkeit, die das Verstehen institutionalisiert, hat im Irakkonflikt jedenfalls keine derartige Schwäche erkennen lassen. In ihrer breiten Mehrheit hat sie dem europäischen Kolonialismus, vor allem aber dem amerikanischen Imperialismus Mitverantwortung für den Terror zugesprochen."

Quelle: Volker Gerhardt - Nach dem Sturm - Merkur 667 - Novemebr 2004

"Zeitungen sind undemokratisch"
BERLIN taz Der Schriftsteller Hermann Peter Piwitt, 69, hält viele deutsche Zeitungen für undemokratisch und viel zu abhängig von wirtschaftlichen Interessen: "Demokratisch wäre eine Zeitung, die, von Millionen gelesen, weder von einem Konzern noch von Banken, weder von einer Partei noch von Großinserenten materiell abhängig ist", schreibt Piwitt im Extrablatt dieser taz-Ausgabe. Alle großen Zeitungen hätten der "Wirtschaft" eine "Welt für sich eingeräumt", kritisiert er. Piwitts Beitrag erscheint im Rahmen der taz-Initiative "Erlesenes erhalten", die die Unersetzbarkeit der Qualitätszeitung für den politischen und gesellschaftlichen Diskurs postuliert. Für diese Initiative wurde die taz in dieser Woche mit dem Award of Excellence des European Newspaper Award ausgezeichnet. EXTRABLATT

taz Nr. 7525 vom 27.11.2004, Seite 1, 28 Zeilen (TAZ-Bericht)

I just can't express how good I feel for my marines who received these notes from Falludja citizens. They are doing a fantastic job over there. I clean the bathrooms and the kitchen before someone comes over showing my guests respect - I want them to feel welcome. Never did I think this would apply to a war situation. People fled their city, before doing so they cleaned the house and left out clean towels and linen for the young soldiers who are doing for them which they can not do for themselves. Amazing SMILE


sieh es mal so: Wenn Du einen Leserbrief an den Spiegel sendest, hast Du keinerlei Anspruch, dass er überhaupt/vollständig abgedruckt wird: Pressefreiheit meint

-Du kannst jederzeit Deinen eigenen Blog gründen,

meint nicht:

-Du hast ein Recht, jeden fremden Blog zu DEINEM Forum zu machen.

Im übrigen finden sich hier zahlreiche kritische Kommentare (chomskybot; transatlantiker u.v.m.), so dass von einer "Ansammlung Gleichgesinnter" kaum die Rede sein kann. Für einen Blog sind die Kommentare der Leser sicher sehr bedeutend, aber die Leser sind eben Leser und nicht Co-Blogger, die gemeinsam mit Ray D/David diesen Blog betreiben würden. Ein Blog ist ein Angebot an die Leser, auf das sie allerdings keinerlei Anspruch haben.

Anybody here actually care about what Iraqis are really thinking?

** Only 33 percent of Iraqis think they're better off now than before the war, as a Gallup poll discovered.
** Just 36 percent believe the interim government shares their values.
** 94 percent say Baghdad is more dangerous than it was before the war.
** 66.6 believe the US occupation could start a civil war.
** 80 percent want the US to leave directly after the January elections.

Where are you getting those stats from? Could you please provide a link I'd like to take a look at them. Thanx

@ condi

I forgot to include the @condi for the above comment. sorry


I found your stats over at the nation. I can not however find them at Gallup. Can you help me out here.

Winni macht Frieden

Ralf Schroeder


Erkenntnisfördernde Einblicke in den Nahen Osten gewinnt man zudem in der „Deutsch-Palästinensischen Gesellschaft“, als deren aktives Mitglied sich Nachtwei ausweist. Diese feine Gesellschaft, die sich für die Freilassung von Marwan Barghouti ebenso wie für die Kampagne „Stop the Wall“ engagiert, erklärt zum Ableben von Arafat:

„Abdel-Rahman Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Hussein, geboren 4. August 1929 - 11. November 2004
Vom Freiheitskämpfer zum Staatsmann,ein Leben für die Würde seines Volkes,vom Untergrund zum Symbol seiner Nation..
Wir trauern um einen Mann, der für die Befreiung seiner Heimat kämpfte,der Frieden und Ausgleich wollte,der in Jerusalem die Hauptstadt eines freien und unabhängigen Staates Palästina sah.
Sein Traum wird in Erfüllung gehen.“

Ein Traum, den Nachtwei teilen dürfte. Winni, dream on.

Bild: Winfried Nachtwei, Bundestagsabgeordneter der Grünen.

"die jüdische" 25.11.2004

Der ganze Artikel ist hier

@Trish - the best daily aggregator of news on Iraq is www.juancole.com. That's where I found the numbers. The most recent Gallup poll I could find is from last April, results here


I don't think that anyone here is saying that there isn't a German involvement in Afghanistan, whether I would use the word commitment so liberally as you, I'm not sure. Commitment to whom? America, Afghanistan, yourselves? Still grappling with the ghosts of the past?

Some interesting points:

Germany hasn't fought a pitched battle in Afghanistan
Germany only elected to "support" Afghanistan, AFTER the war was won. German troops started to arrive on rented Ukranian transportation starting in January, 2002. Kabul had fallen in December...
Schröder won support with only one vote in parliament. This suggests that had Afghanistan not been such a cake-walk as it was, i.e. if the shit were to have hit the fan, German support for the operation would have dissolved immediately. Your troops would have been home immediately...

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Germany is there to help police the country. Since commitment, to me at least, has notions of standing shoulder to shoulder ( like Australia and the UK ), perhaps "support" would be a better word to describe Germany's relationship with the central Asian country.

Just a suggestion...

Niko, I understand that you do not like results of this poll (there have been similar polls before, by the way), but

"It's not a bug, it's a feature. It's called Arab mentality."

Das ist ja wohl die unangenehmste rassistische Unverschämtheit, die mir auf diesem blog begegnet ist. Da spiegelt sich wohl das alte/neue deutsch-westliche Herrenmenschendenken wieder. Der smarte Niko sitzt gemütlich und sicher an seinem Heimcomputer, der bestimmt nicht billig war, und erklärt den Irakern mal ganz nassforsch, dass sie die Zustände in Ihrem Land gefälligst gutzuheissen haben, und wenn SIe das nicht können, liegt das an ihrer minderwertigen Kultur, und nicht an der ungebetenen Okkupation, oder was.

Germany hasn't fought a pitched battle in Afghanistan

completely wrong, german KSK special forces are hunting taliban or insurgents together with other special forces

Hey guys, I haven't been able to confirm the stats that are being discussed here. Have you? I found them on the Nation website. There, gallup is mentioned for the first stat. I went to gallup and could not find them. Unless I can confirm the stats I personally don't feel comfortable commenting on them. If they are from Gallup why am I having such a hard time finding them. Any additional fact checking help would be greatly appreciated. P.S. I have found the same stats on other sites they all refer to the Nation site.

Where is Riverbends blog (Baghdad Burning)?

"Blödsinn. Daran ist rein gar nichts rassistisch."

Naja, "den Arabern" eine kollektive Mentalität zu unterstellen ist streng genommen natürlich nicht rassistisch im Sinne eines biologistischen Rassismus. Man feiert ja nicht die Überlegenheit des eigenen Genpools, sondern nur die Überlegenheit der eigenen ..."Mentalität". Klar.

Ich muss mich entschuldigen, der korrekte Ausdruck wäre natürlich Chauvinismus. Herrenmenschendenken bleibt es leider trotzdem. Festzuhalten bleibt: Die "arabische", irgendwie mit dem Islam zusammenhängende "Opfermentalität" (die sich natürlich fundamental von westlich-reaktionärem "Patriotismus", preussischen Soldatentugenden oder christlicher Opferbereitschaft unterscheidet), soll schuld daran sein, dass sich in einer Umfrage Iraker nicht dankbar genug gegenüber den Folgen der unerbetenen Befreiung/Besatzung mit dazugehörigem Angriffskrieg zeigen. Findet Niko, hart arbeitender Schreibtisch-Missionar und nicht-deutscher Nicht-Rassist. In den muslimischen Ländern leben übrigens alle möglichen Kulturen und Religionen teilweise schon lange friedlich nebeneinander und miteinander. Viele der Konflikte begannen erst als Folge des Kolonialismus, der Aufteilung des nahem Ostens am Kartentisch und dem Scheitern eines sekularen Nationalismus, soweit ich weiss. Und was genau ist nun ein "Araber", und was ist arabisch? Wie erkennt man einen Araber? Was macht ihn aus? Was ist Ihre Mentalität, Niko? Warum dürfen "die Araber" keine Individuen sein? Woher wollen Sie wissen, was die Menschen im Irak denken? WIe kommen Sie dazu, ihnen vorschreiben zu wollen, was sie zu denken hätten?

Ach, und wie billig: Man greift ohne Sicherheitsratsbeschluss ein Land an, das einen nicht bedroht, mit ständig wechselnden Begründungen, die sich teilweise als unwahr herausstellen, stürzt dabei einen Diktator, den man vormals auch mal gestützt hat, die Folge sind ganz unerwarteterweise Chaos und Gewalt im Lande, und dann führt man die Sehnsucht des Durchschnittsirakers nach Frieden und Stabilität als Begründung für die Besetzung und eigene Unverzichtbarkeit an.

"Ich würde es übrigens begrüssen wenn "old school" sich endlich mal auf einen einzigen Nickname festlegen würde."

Welche Postings sollen denn noch von mir sein??
Aber diese Diskussionen beginnen sowieso, mich zu langweilen, gegen ein solches Sendungsbewusstsein ist rational nicht zu argumentieren, es handelt sich wohl um Glaubensfragen. Dissenz oder hinterfragen der hier gefeierten Haltung ist ja auch nicht gerne gesehen und Konsens Pflicht.
"Die Partei, die Partei hat immer recht..."
Also, ciao.

I'm not quite sure about the new posting from David about blogging. As far as I understand it, you are very much invited to disagree with this blog but you should not turn this into your own blog. I hope that is the case but if it is different, please enlighten me...


I keep reading this about the KSK and no one has ever been able to provide a single link to any military report which supports this claim.

And just what are the numbers of KSK deployed? How many of them are KIA's and WIA's?

I now believe that it is all it is, a claim. Yes, the KSK might be deployed in country but no one can prove they are conducting actually combat missions.

If you have a link to a source, I wish you would please post it


Would someone please correct me... I thought the streets were safe in Berlin under Hitler as were the streets in Moscow under Stalin.

Did I miss something here??

to those who read Juancole.com, please know he is extremely anti-American, totally biased and I wouldn't believe very much of what he says or prints. He is reknowned for his extreme left wing views as are so many tenured professors of Middle-East studies at major American Universities. Cole is at the University of Michigan.

I keep reading this about the KSK and no one has ever been able to provide a single link to any military report which supports this claim.


This mission has been kept quite secret. There was substantial public protest in Germany against the secrecy. But there were German soldiers in real combat missions.

I was already aware of that particular article. It surely says two things - one they are not there and secondly there is a question about being engaged in combat ops.

Or did I misread the article?

The article on confirms they were in country. At this point Germany has other troops in country which is also reported at this site as well as others.

It still does not provide any information to support the claim made by racker and others.

Have a better source, this one does not support the question asked.

Thanks for your effort.

"As of now a small contingent of KSK force are on a secret mission under the code name Moonraker. Mission objective is to set up a base on Moon and build that almighty weapon that once and for all will take out all evil on planet Earth"

Not all your details are correct here, it is not the moon, it is the venus and the code name is "venusfalle"

"I keep reading this about the KSK and no one has ever been able to provide a single link to any military report which supports this claim."

Thers is not much shown in the media about it, some links i found! They fought together with american special troops under the code name "operation anaconda"!


have a nice day

Wer sagt es denn:

"Nie fielen in einem Monat mehr GIs" (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,330324,00.html).

Sind doch NEWs, oder?

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30